Era Discussions For All Time Periods

First topic message reminder :

I noticed that two topics went wildly off topic and developed into a golden era/weak era debate. Now I see era debates now as pretty pointless as both parties will never budge from their stand and also they are so difficult to judge. Whereas some see golden eras as ones with the very best players in the top four mopping up the slam wins others argue that slam wins evenly distributed around to players outside the top players displays strength in depth. Also when do eras start and finish - another very difficult thing to judge.

One player that is a constant n both debates are Roger Federer. Some feel his early slam wins came in a weak era and dried up towards the end of the golden era which he is also deemed to be a part of which surely means Federer should be used as a yardstick. If we look at Roger Federer (and I believe his fans feel his peak years were 2003 to 2007) and see how he fared against players prominent in the early 2000's in this time compared to players prominent in the late 2000's (only taking matches played during Fed's peak years) then we see interesting stats.

Head-to-heads:-

Federer V Safin (Federer 5-1)

Federer V Roddick (Federer 12-1)

Federer V Hewitt (Federer 11-1)

Now for players from the late 2000's playing Federer in his peak whilst some of these listed were at pre-peak:-

Federer V Nadal (Nadal 8-6)

Federer V Djokovic (Federer 5-1)

Federer V Murray (Level at 1-1)

Make from those stats what you will but era debates perhaps on here would be better restricted to just one thread?

Nastase (2 slams) had a 16 - 12 record against Connors (8 slams)
and was 10 - 11 vs Borg (11 slams)

Henman v Kuerten (5-3) Kuerten v Henman (3-5)

Rome 2005 - R64 Tim Henman (GBR) 6 L 3-6, 3-6
Canada 2004 - R32 Tim Henman (GBR) 5 W 7-5, 6-4
Paris 2003 - R16 Tim Henman (GBR) 31 L 4-6, 2-6
Cincy 2002 - R64 Tim Henman (GBR) 4 L 3-6, 4-6
Indy 2001 - Q Tim Henman (GBR) 9 W 3-6, 6-1, 7-5
Cincy 2001 - S Tim Henman (GBR) 8 W 6-2, 1-6, 7-6(4)
Cincy 2000 - S Tim Henman (GBR) 16 L 7-6(11), 3-6, 6-7(0)
Miami 1998 - Q Tim Henman (GBR) 20 L 2-6, 4-6

Henman with no slams. (but alas no 15-match minimum).

The quality of players who aren't at the level to threaten a spot in a Grand Slam semi, is irrelevant when considering how many people are threatening to play well enough to challenge the event.

Laverfan/ Bobgrush:
I found out a stat which was somehow avoided by you guys, I found out in Federer's 4 successful years he won 88% of Grand Slams on Hard Court, and 0% on clay.
Do you think this massive difference is due to:
a) The reason for this was that Federer's competition on hard-courts during these four years were not as difficult as it was on clay due to Rafa.
b) Federer is just simply a much better player on hard courts than on clay, hence the 88%-0% stat reflects how good Federer was on these surfaces.
c) A bit of both- Federer may have been slightly better on HC than on clay, but it was mainly due to the fact that on clay he had an incredibly tough challenge of having to beat Nadal every time, while on HC Slams between these years Federer did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time (apart from Agassi who was 35, and Djokovic when he was a teenager.)

I think it's option c.

Krajicek is also 2-1 vs Lendl, 4-4 vs Becker, 4-3 vs Edberg, 5-4 vs Bruguera but 3-4 vs Agassi.
One slam wonder.

Not entirely sure why the mods are randomly listing H2Hs.
Is there some sort of game I've missed?

It Must Be Love wrote:Not entirely sure why the mods are randomly listing H2Hs.
Is there some sort of game I've missed?

No just some posts you've missed.
Unless perhaps we can get CC to change the topic title to 'Eras after 2000 discussion'.

It Must Be Love wrote:Not entirely sure why the mods are randomly listing H2Hs.
Is there some sort of game I've missed?

Please read BS's comments.

It Must Be Love wrote:The quality of players who aren't at the level to threaten a spot in a Grand Slam semi, is irrelevant when considering how many people are threatening to play well enough to challenge the event.

Laverfan/ Bobgrush:
I found out a stat which was somehow avoided by you guys, I found out in Federer's 4 successful years he won 88% of Grand Slams on Hard Court, and 0% on clay.
Do you think this massive difference is due to:
a) The reason for this was that Federer's competition on hard-courts during these four years were not as difficult as it was on clay due to Rafa.
b) Federer is just simply a much better player on hard courts than on clay, hence the 88%-0% stat reflects how good Federer was on these surfaces.
c) A bit of both- Federer may have been slightly better on HC than on clay, but it was mainly due to the fact that on clay he had an incredibly tough challenge of having to beat Nadal every time, while on HC Slams between these years Federer did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time (apart from Agassi who was 35, and Djokovic when he was a teenager.)

I think it's option c.

On the same HC, Nadal was beating Federer in Miami 2004 and Dubai 2006. , but never made it to an HC final till when? He was maturing, correct?

Federer did get to SF/F at RG even though he did not win, correct?


How do you take this ...

but it was mainly due to the fact that on clay he had an incredibly tough challenge of having to beat Nadal every time,

and derive this...

while on HC Slams between these years Federer did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time

PS: Yet Nadal could reach 2006/2007/2008 W finals, but not HC. At least Djokovic got to the finals of US in 2007 (by beating a player called no-weapons Ferrer ).

It Must Be Love wrote:The quality of players who aren't at the level to threaten a spot in a Grand Slam semi, is irrelevant when considering how many people are threatening to play well enough to challenge the event.

Laverfan/ Bobgrush:
I found out a stat which was somehow avoided by you guys, I found out in Federer's 4 successful years he won 88% of Grand Slams on Hard Court, and 0% on clay.
Do you think this massive difference is due to:
a) The reason for this was that Federer's competition on hard-courts during these four years were not as difficult as it was on clay due to Rafa.
b) Federer is just simply a much better player on hard courts than on clay, hence the 88%-0% stat reflects how good Federer was on these surfaces.
c) A bit of both- Federer may have been slightly better on HC than on clay, but it was mainly due to the fact that on clay he had an incredibly tough challenge of having to beat Nadal every time, while on HC Slams between these years Federer did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time (apart from Agassi who was 35, and Djokovic when he was a teenager.)

I think it's option c.

Excellent post IMBL federer wasn't as good on clay but it had more to do with how incredible Nadal was on clay remembering how many finals fed made at the FO to get beat by nadal.

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:The quality of players who aren't at the level to threaten a spot in a Grand Slam semi, is irrelevant when considering how many people are threatening to play well enough to challenge the event.

Laverfan/ Bobgrush:
I found out a stat which was somehow avoided by you guys, I found out in Federer's 4 successful years he won 88% of Grand Slams on Hard Court, and 0% on clay.
Do you think this massive difference is due to:
a) The reason for this was that Federer's competition on hard-courts during these four years were not as difficult as it was on clay due to Rafa.
b) Federer is just simply a much better player on hard courts than on clay, hence the 88%-0% stat reflects how good Federer was on these surfaces.
c) A bit of both- Federer may have been slightly better on HC than on clay, but it was mainly due to the fact that on clay he had an incredibly tough challenge of having to beat Nadal every time, while on HC Slams between these years Federer did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time (apart from Agassi who was 35, and Djokovic when he was a teenager.)

I think it's option c.

Excellent post IMBL federer wasn't as good on clay but it had more to do with how incredible Nadal was on clay remembering how many finals fed made at the FO to get beat by nadal.

And yet IMBL discounts Fed's 2 wins over Rafa at Wimby because Rafa hadn't matured on grass yet. Not because Federer was incredible on grass. I suspect IMBL reckons Rafa is a better grass court player than Fed - 2 strong Wimbys over 7 weak ones.

Hi Laverfan

laverfan wrote:
He was maturing, correct?

Yes that's absolutely correct.
Nadal did indeed mature and improve at surfaces other than clay as he got older.

Federer did get to SF/F at RG even though he did not win, correct?

Yes, correct.
My theory is that he lost, not primarily because he was terrible on clay, but because he had a difficult proposition many times in facing Rafa on clay.

How do you take this ...

At least Djokovic got to the finals of US in 2007

Yes that's right, at quite a young age too.

Funnily enough LF, you didn't actually answer my question which I asked. Why avoid it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:The quality of players who aren't at the level to threaten a spot in a Grand Slam semi, is irrelevant when considering how many people are threatening to play well enough to challenge the event.

Laverfan/ Bobgrush:
I found out a stat which was somehow avoided by you guys, I found out in Federer's 4 successful years he won 88% of Grand Slams on Hard Court, and 0% on clay.
Do you think this massive difference is due to:
a) The reason for this was that Federer's competition on hard-courts during these four years were not as difficult as it was on clay due to Rafa.
b) Federer is just simply a much better player on hard courts than on clay, hence the 88%-0% stat reflects how good Federer was on these surfaces.
c) A bit of both- Federer may have been slightly better on HC than on clay, but it was mainly due to the fact that on clay he had an incredibly tough challenge of having to beat Nadal every time, while on HC Slams between these years Federer did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time (apart from Agassi who was 35, and Djokovic when he was a teenager.)

I think it's option c.

Excellent post IMBL federer wasn't as good on clay but it had more to do with how incredible Nadal was on clay remembering how many finals fed made at the FO to get beat by nadal.

And yet IMBL discounts Fed's 2 wins over Rafa at Wimby because Rafa hadn't matured on grass yet. Not because Federer was incredible on grass. I suspect IMBL reckons Rafa is a better grass court player than Fed - 2 strong Wimbys over 7 weak ones.

Have I ever said that? No, I haven't.
You have alleged I have said 3 things, and on all 3 counts I have not stated so in this forum.
Perhaps you can be more polite me in the future and ask my opinion before stating what I think.

You've often stated Fed only beat Rafa at Wimby because Rafa hadn't matured on grass.
The use of 'I suspect' means it's my opinion, not something you've said. I note you didn't refute it.
Do you think Rafa is a better grass court player than Federer?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Nastase (2 slams) had a 16 - 12 record against Connors (8 slams)
and was 10 - 11 vs Borg (11 slams)

Those are good ones although not quite meeting my criteria . Always forget Nasty only won two slams. Is the profile of those matches what you would expect - ie Nasty winning a lot early on?

Stich/Krajicek v Sampras are the best ones so far. What's odd is that they were similar style players to Sampras. Both severely underrated as well. Krajcek in particular at his best was devastating. Shame he was so injury prone.

The fact remains I find it hard to fathom a strong period on clay that Nadal wouldn't run roughshod over. He is more than the equal of any clay court champion I can think of maybe a peak Guga could challenge him but I think Nadal would win a significant majority of those matchups. There is a reason he has won it 7 times and probably will win it again at some point.

I love this routine, must be played out 5 times on this thread lready;

1. Amrit writes a really easy post that basically slates Federer

2. Laverfan or Julius expose it with embarrassing ease.

3. Socal, having not read the thread dives on to award amrits effort some admiration because its a welcome piece of support.

4. I laugh out loud.

5. Amrit tries to defend his original post, digging deeper and deeper.

6. I carry on laughing.


Seriously kids, keep it up. Comedy gold.

JuliusHMarx wrote:You've often stated Fed only beat Rafa at Wimby because Rafa hadn't matured on grass.
The use of 'I suspect' means it's my opinion, not something you've said. I note you didn't refute it.
Do you think Rafa is a better grass court player than Federer?

'only'?

Certainly it was not the only reason, although I do feel that Nadal still improved his grass court game after this point. I can't find the link but I remember Federer saying how Nadal has improved on grass after the 2008 final. Federer was fantastic tennis though, I remember the fifth set was a close one but Roger served really well in the key moments.

As for who is better on grass, that is a tough one.
I suspect it depends on the pace and bounce of the court, on a slow/medium grass court with high bounce you'd give Nadal the edge, but on a fast/ low bounce grass you'd say Federer is better.
Statistically on grass Federer has accumulated more though.

bogbrush wrote:I love this routine, must be played out 5 times on this thread lready;

1. Amrit writes a really easy post that basically slates Federer

2. Laverfan or Julius expose it with embarrassing ease.

3. Socal, having not read the thread dives on to award amrits effort some admiration because its a welcome piece of support.

4. I laugh out loud.

5. Amrit tries to defend his original post, digging deeper and deeper.

6. I carry on laughing.


Seriously kids, keep it up. Comedy gold.

-I make a point.

-No one actually reads what I'm writing.

-Julius randomly makes by some nonsense, saying 'I suspect.....'

-Socal actually reads my posts and responds back to me.

Funnily enough no one has actually even tried to answer my question at 5:25.
Laverfan quoted the post, but ignored my actual question. Julius started making up some position that I don't hold. Bogbrush totally ignored it, and then made a comment saying how I had been totally exposed by the people who had totally ignored me.

BB, I have an affinity for logical and well researched posters, hence my affinity for amrit's work. The fact remains on a side issue we often hear this critique of Nadal that he played in a less deep clay court era, I find it difficult to imagine any clay court era that he wouldn't be the dominant force on said surface.

As to other points you have made, as to youngsters and depth. As I have stated the fact that the current crop is stronger in accomplishment then the player's that immediately preceded them and the young players coming up now shows how special they are. I have a feeling that it will be seen that it takes a bit more time to develop and that the modern style of play favors a more seasoned pro. That is why we aren't seeing you players just blast their way to the top anymore because that just isn't enough on its own. Furthermore I don't see any particular weakness in the top 10 or 20 guys behined the big 4.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I love this routine, must be played out 5 times on this thread lready;

1. Amrit writes a really easy post that basically slates Federer

2. Laverfan or Julius expose it with embarrassing ease.

3. Socal, having not read the thread dives on to award amrits effort some admiration because its a welcome piece of support.

4. I laugh out loud.

5. Amrit tries to defend his original post, digging deeper and deeper.

6. I carry on laughing.


Seriously kids, keep it up. Comedy gold.

-I make a point.

-No one actually reads what I'm writing.

-Julius randomly makes by some nonsense, saying 'I suspect.....'

-Socal actually reads my posts and responds back to me.

I hope you believe that, I don't want the fun to stop.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I love this routine, must be played out 5 times on this thread lready;

1. Amrit writes a really easy post that basically slates Federer

2. Laverfan or Julius expose it with embarrassing ease.

3. Socal, having not read the thread dives on to award amrits effort some admiration because its a welcome piece of support.

4. I laugh out loud.

5. Amrit tries to defend his original post, digging deeper and deeper.

6. I carry on laughing.


Seriously kids, keep it up. Comedy gold.

-I make a point.

-No one actually reads what I'm writing.

-Julius randomly makes by some nonsense, saying 'I suspect.....'

-Socal actually reads my posts and responds back to me.

I hope you believe that, I don't want the fun to stop.

Still no answer the my question Bogbrush...

It is hard to find fault with the points the man is making, I agree with him I don't see the controversy or point to it BB other than to attack the messenger when you don't like the message.

@BS...

One more for your record book (your criteria (the 15-match) are too stringent though )...

Rios v Gaudio (5-0)

Dusseldorf 2003 - RR Gaston Gaudio (ARG) 22 W 6-3, 6-3
IW 2003 - R64 Gaston Gaudio (ARG) 20 W 4-0 RET
VTR 2003 - S Gaston Gaudio (ARG) 22 W 6-3, 6-2
Madrid 2002 - R64 Gaston Gaudio (ARG) 22 W 6-2, 6-2
Cincy 2002 - R64 Gaston Gaudio (ARG) 21 W 6-3, 6-2

Suprisingly, Rios never played Coria within ATP.

It Must Be Love wrote:Funnily enough no one has actually even tried to answer my question at 5:25.
Laverfan quoted the post, but ignored my actual question. Julius started making up some position that I don't hold. Bogbrush totally ignored it, and then made a comment saying how I had been totally exposed by the people who had totally ignored me.

I wanted to spare you more humiliation.

What you seem to be saying is that there wasn't a hard court and grass court versions of clay Nadal.

No sh1t, Sherlock.

Laverfan was kinder to you. She is. I just gave you a break. Oh well.

If BB is known for anything his sparing of humiliation.

Are you claiming tha Nadal didn't improve vastly on faster surfaces from his emergence I fail to see the controversy to anything amrit has written?

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Funnily enough no one has actually even tried to answer my question at 5:25.
Laverfan quoted the post, but ignored my actual question. Julius started making up some position that I don't hold. Bogbrush totally ignored it, and then made a comment saying how I had been totally exposed by the people who had totally ignored me.

I wanted to spare you more humiliation.

What you seem to be saying is that there wasn't a hard court and grass court versions of clay Nadal.

No sh1t, Sherlock.

Laverfan was kinder to you. She is. I just gave you a break. Oh well.

Wait, if you agree with me (I assume your no sh1t Sherlock' line was sarcasm) then why would addressing my post be humiliating. Not really sure where you're coming from.
And not really sure why Laverfan was kinder than you, you're both equally kind in that you're not addressing my point.

But wait... do you agree that Federer had a greater challenge on clay than he did on hard court in those four years?
And coming on from that, would you think it's fair to say that Federer between 2004-2007 beat no player on hard courts who is in the top 20 of all time, discarding a 35 year old Agassi and a teenage Djokovic.

socal1976 wrote:Are you claiming tha Nadal didn't improve vastly on faster surfaces from his emergence I fail to see the controversy to anything amrit has written?

Oh I know you fail to see it. That's half the problem.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Are you claiming tha Nadal didn't improve vastly on faster surfaces from his emergence I fail to see the controversy to anything amrit has written?

Oh I know you fail to see it. That's half the problem.

What's your point???

I think that Nadal improved his movement on grass and hard court as he got older and more experienced on these surfaces? Do you agree/disagree? Or are you going to return with your usual sarcastic line which means you avoid the question?

It Must Be Love wrote:Funnily enough no one has actually even tried to answer my question at 5:25.
Laverfan quoted the post, but ignored my actual question. Julius started making up some position that I don't hold. Bogbrush totally ignored it, and then made a comment saying how I had been totally exposed by the people who had totally ignored me.

You have an opinion that is c. Others have a differing opinion. Why this monomania with the 88%-0%?

You may want to count "Clay" entries here. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=tf

When the rolls-royces were whining in the garage wanting Chuck Norris or Grass shoes to help them stand up, Federer adapted to blue clay and won.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Funnily enough no one has actually even tried to answer my question at 5:25.
Laverfan quoted the post, but ignored my actual question. Julius started making up some position that I don't hold. Bogbrush totally ignored it, and then made a comment saying how I had been totally exposed by the people who had totally ignored me.

I wanted to spare you more humiliation.

What you seem to be saying is that there wasn't a hard court and grass court versions of clay Nadal.

No sh1t, Sherlock.

Laverfan was kinder to you. She is. I just gave you a break. Oh well.

Wait, if you agree with me (I assume your no sh1t Sherlock' line was sarcasm) then why would addressing my post be humiliating. Not really sure where you're coming from.
And not really sure why Laverfan was kinder than you, you're both equally kind in that you're not addressing my point.

But wait... do you agree that Federer had a greater challenge on clay than he did on hard court in those four years?
And coming on from that, would you think it's fair to say that Federer between 2004-2007 beat no player on hard courts who is in the top 20 of all time, discarding a 35 year old Agassi and a teenage Djokovic.

Jesus amrit, why do you do this to yourself?

Your big idea is that Federer on less on clay because he was around at the same time as a clay GOAT than he did on grass because he is one of two grass GOATs and on hard because he's probably the hard court GOAT.

I mean, what on Earth do you expect anyone to do with that piece of insight?

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Funnily enough no one has actually even tried to answer my question at 5:25.
Laverfan quoted the post, but ignored my actual question. Julius started making up some position that I don't hold. Bogbrush totally ignored it, and then made a comment saying how I had been totally exposed by the people who had totally ignored me.

You have an opinion that is c. Others have a differing opinion. Why this monomania with the 88%-0%?

Wait, what is your opinion?
That's all I'm asking.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Funnily enough no one has actually even tried to answer my question at 5:25.
Laverfan quoted the post, but ignored my actual question. Julius started making up some position that I don't hold. Bogbrush totally ignored it, and then made a comment saying how I had been totally exposed by the people who had totally ignored me.

I wanted to spare you more humiliation.

What you seem to be saying is that there wasn't a hard court and grass court versions of clay Nadal.

No sh1t, Sherlock.

Laverfan was kinder to you. She is. I just gave you a break. Oh well.

Wait, if you agree with me (I assume your no sh1t Sherlock' line was sarcasm) then why would addressing my post be humiliating. Not really sure where you're coming from.
And not really sure why Laverfan was kinder than you, you're both equally kind in that you're not addressing my point.

But wait... do you agree that Federer had a greater challenge on clay than he did on hard court in those four years?
And coming on from that, would you think it's fair to say that Federer between 2004-2007 beat no player on hard courts who is in the top 20 of all time, discarding a 35 year old Agassi and a teenage Djokovic.

Jesus amrit, why do you do this to yourself?

Your big idea is that Federer on less on clay because he was around at the same time as a clay GOAT than he did on grass because he is one of two grass GOATs and on hard because he's probably the hard court GOAT.

I mean, what on Earth do you expect anyone to do with that piece of insight?

Not really addressing what I was saying...
You've covered one aspect of what I'm saying, which is that he struggled on clay because he came across Rafa.
My second point was that conversely on hard courts, in these four years he had easier competition at the top, not facing anyone in the HC Slams who is even in the top 25 greatest of all time apart from a teen Djoko and 35 year old Agassi.

When faced with a paucity of factual evidence sarcasm can be used as a defense mechanism I think this is all that has been proven in the last few posts. I read Amrit's posts and found nothing in them controversial and use of good facts for a change from other posters to support his opinions.

socal1976 wrote:Are you claiming tha Nadal didn't improve vastly on faster surfaces from his emergence I fail to see the controversy to anything amrit has written?

Funnily enough... Let us not turn this into the usual. Are his Miami 2004/Dubai 2006 one offs, like Nalbandian beating both Fedal in Paris and Madrid 2007.

You want to denigrate players, go ahead. By making a set of players look bad, you want to prove a point that something was easier. Come up with objective/scientific criteria, otherwise it is pure opinion, and indefensible either way.

HB's summation is probably very apt for this thread. Some arbitrary stat of 88-0% does not make anyone's case, does it? Selective data to fit a theory is laughable (to quote a previous well known quote).

Laverfan, you still didn't answer my question. Why do you think the stat (88-0) emerged. I have checked it with the ATP website, so I haven't made it up.

laverfan wrote:
Selective data to fit a theory is laughable (to quote a previous well known quote).

Is it really?
A few days ago I was in an argument with my friend, saying that tobacco smoke is bad for health. I selected some stats showing how increased tobacco use leads to higher lung disease. Is that laughable?

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Are you claiming tha Nadal didn't improve vastly on faster surfaces from his emergence I fail to see the controversy to anything amrit has written?

Funnily enough... Let us not turn this into the usual. Are his Miami 2004/Dubai 2006 one offs, like Nalbandian beating both Fedal in Paris and Madrid 2007.

You want to denigrate players, go ahead. By making a set of players look bad, you want to prove a point that something was easier. Come up with objective/scientific criteria, otherwise it is pure opinion, and indefensible either way.

HB's summation is probably very apt for this thread. Some arbitrary stat of 88-0% does not make anyone's case, does it? Selective data to fit a theory is laughable (to quote a previous well known quote).

There is a wide range of data to support my theories. I have done stats showing how the number 1s of that period failed in terms of slam counts and accomplishments to past number ones. Prior to the late 90s and early 2000s the average slam count of #1 player was nearly 5 slams, in that period the average slam count of first time #1s was like 1.5 slams. If you compare the weak era players even at their best against the current crop they fail, hewitt's best season points wise might get him a #3 ranking in this period. Djokovic won a slam 5 tournaments, the year end masters similar to a year that hewitt had and with more total match wins and hewitt finished as world #1, Djokovic for that season in 2008 was a distant 3rd place in the rankings. These are not isolated facts, these are telling and to the point, and wide ranging. Any objective stat requires some measure of subjective analysis by a skilled and experienced analyst like myself.

It Must Be Love wrote:

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Funnily enough no one has actually even tried to answer my question at 5:25.
Laverfan quoted the post, but ignored my actual question. Julius started making up some position that I don't hold. Bogbrush totally ignored it, and then made a comment saying how I had been totally exposed by the people who had totally ignored me.

You have an opinion that is c. Others have a differing opinion. Why this monomania with the 88%-0%?

Wait, what is your opinion?
That's all I'm asking.

1. Federer has beaten Nadal on clay, but not at RG, correct? Why are you using selective data of just slams to come up with a number?

2. Djokovic has also beaten Nadal on clay, but not at just slams. Please come up with the same percentage ratio for Djokovic and Murray and we can discuss this further. You desire to isolate Federer is disingenuous despite you lip service to his record.

A 'maturing' player can have victories over a 'matured' player. Nadal v Djokovic on Clay vs HC/Grass in 2011 is an example that you need to digest.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You've often stated Fed only beat Rafa at Wimby because Rafa hadn't matured on grass.
The use of 'I suspect' means it's my opinion, not something you've said. I note you didn't refute it.
Do you think Rafa is a better grass court player than Federer?

'only'?

Certainly it was not the only reason, although I do feel that Nadal still improved his grass court game after this point. I can't find the link but I remember Federer saying how Nadal has improved on grass after the 2008 final. Federer was fantastic tennis though, I remember the fifth set was a close one but Roger served really well in the key moments.

As for who is better on grass, that is a tough one.
I suspect it depends on the pace and bounce of the court, on a slow/medium grass court with high bounce you'd give Nadal the edge, but on a fast/ low bounce grass you'd say Federer is better.
Statistically on grass Federer has accumulated more though.

So when grass plays very similar to clay you think Rafa is better, but if grass plays more like a traditional grass court Fed is better.
Let me ask this - who is the greater Wimbledon champion - Fed or Rafa?

It Must Be Love wrote:

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Funnily enough no one has actually even tried to answer my question at 5:25.
Laverfan quoted the post, but ignored my actual question. Julius started making up some position that I don't hold. Bogbrush totally ignored it, and then made a comment saying how I had been totally exposed by the people who had totally ignored me.

You have an opinion that is c. Others have a differing opinion. Why this monomania with the 88%-0%?

Wait, what is your opinion?
That's all I'm asking.

I don't think you're actually interested in people's opinion. I think you're only interested in changing people's opinion to match your own.

I am with BB. This is comedy viewing.

It Must Be Love wrote:Laverfan, you still didn't answer my question. Why do you think the stat (88-0) emerged. I have checked it with the ATP website, so I haven't made it up.

laverfan wrote:
Selective data to fit a theory is laughable (to quote a previous well known quote).

Is it really?
A few days ago I was in an argument with my friend, saying that tobacco smoke is bad for health. I selected some stats showing how increased tobacco use leads to higher lung disease. Is that laughable?

You seem to not understand that tobacco is not inherently harmful, but the additives that are added to tobacco, including substances which create addiction in smokers are the primary carcinogens. Since you have links to India (based on past conversations), do you know what bidis are? This is completely off-topic.

We have had similar discussions on selective data. The famous draw-rigging discussion comes to mind.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am with BB. This is comedy viewing.

I'm glad you appreciate it - I try my best!

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am with BB. This is comedy viewing.

I absolutely agree. Perhaps this energy should be spent in finding answers to BSes question. It is a very interesting question.

I also notice the topic change.

laverfan wrote:
1. Federer has beaten Nadal on clay, but not at RG, correct? Why are you using selective data of just slams to come up with a number?

Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that Federer has beaten Nadal on clay...

2. Djokovic has also beaten Nadal on clay, but not at just slams. Please come up with the same percentage ratio for Djokovic and Murray and we can discuss this further.

OK... but not entirely sure what this has to do with my question.

A 'maturing' player can have victories over a 'matured' player.

Yes, thanks for this Laverfan, but I knew that. I can even give some fantastic examples of this happening... but once again you're avoiding my question as you have throughout.
This is the real comedy, people are ignoring everything I'm saying, trying to twist my words, some people are just making up false position, others are resorting to personal sarcastic insults because they can't deal the debate, and with all of this no one has answered the actual question I've raised.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't think you're actually interested in people's opinion. I think you're only interested in changing people's opinion to match your own.

I'm asking a question, which for some reason no one is answering.

I was debating on another forum a few months ago on gun control. I pointed out some stats, showing that countries on average with limited gun availability had less gun crime than countries where they were more easily available (ie legal for all). I then asked them why they though this was the case, and their response was a mirror image to the response to my question on here... some sarcastic insults, most people totally avoided my question, and then some crazy loony NRA puppet said I was trying to take away their (the American's) freedom.

So apart from the loony NRA guy, the response has been pretty similar to v2.

It Must Be Love wrote:

...............................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................

As for who is better on grass, that is a tough one.
I suspect it depends on the pace and bounce of the court, on a slow/medium grass court with high bounce you'd give Nadal the edge, but on a fast/ low bounce grass you'd say Federer is better.
Statistically on grass Federer has accumulated more though.

Thought I was having hallucinations on reading this one.

IMBL : I try my best to stick to the tennis rather than personalising things (as I hope you would acknowledge) but seriously now ........

They do say love is blind. Your devotion to the Heroically Charitable one seemingly knows no bounds.

There's a strong possibility that you might be the only observer of tennis on planet earth who is struggling with the question as to whether Federer is a better grass player than Nadal (or indeed than pretty much anyone who has played the game)

Must say I was very much amused by the way your reluctantly-made comment "statistically on grass Federer has accumulated more though" was casually tagged on to the very end, almost as an after-thought - as though his actual performances and records are secondary to your own opinion and assessment. I'm sure that poor Fed, when faced with your less-than-conclusive verdict, will be mightily relieved that he has a few stats to back things up.

I rarely play tennis these days but when I did, I had some pretty good matches on clay ......statistically Nadal has achieved more though..............